Una storia senza nome

Not enough material for a full feature film. Good content, weak delivery. Choose another movie.

I have loved this movie and I suggest to watch it because it tells a true but unsolved story regarding the stole of a painting belonging to one of the most great Italian painter, Caravaggio. The Mafia is involved of course.

Few films made in this century can keep me glued to the screen like 'Una Storia senza nome' (The Stolen Caravaggio). I found the story gripping and full of surprises. Between the lines I can perceive distant echoes of F for Fake and not just because of the presence of a work of art. Yet, this is more about the multiple illusions that only the moving pictures can create. The main plot is filled with thrilling sub plots that eventually blend magically in the end. The characters are all well developed and well acted. There is a lot of humour, but it can also be emotional. I found one scene especially moving, when Alberto (Renato Carpentieri) embraces tenderly Valeria (Micaela Ramazzotti). Details are so well crafted: my favourites are the group of twins in the movie within the movie, the running joke of Muzio (Scevola) and the charming title credits with the naughty putti. What can I say? An instant classic. Bravo Signor Andò: you are the proof that Italians still do it better.

You can spot a made-for-TV production right away. The story-line is straightforward, little nuances that make you think days later, the takes are frontal and simple, the dialogue is simple and obvious, the facial expressions are stereotyped. Or maybe the Big Cinema budgets in today's Italy are YesterYear. Fact is, I almost fell asleep on this one. A modern day Nancy Drew figures out plot and counter-plot. Yeah, it's a comedy. But make sure you pay less than five bucks for your time watching this.

I was not familiar with Roberto Andò before watching this. Despite the lack of overall satisfaction, the movie somehow communicated to me in a sincere way, making me want to see other works of the director.

Problems arise from three major issues which are intervowen:

1. The patchwork of visual attitudes observed throughout the film

2. Not focusing on what particular aspect of the story to follow

3. Sacrification of potentially deep, captivating, long scenes for the sake of little bits and pieces

Some of the worst scenes are the black-and-white constructions of Alberto Rak's narration to Valeria. They looked so cheap and unimaginative that, I wanted to jump back in time, into the post production room, and scream at the people to at least use some distortion effect, a filter of sorts, to mess with the speed and focus to add some gravitas to that murder which was supposed not only to attract the attention of the film company people in the movie, but also that of us, the viewers.

Those flashback scenes were presented in such a random, tasteless and cheap way that, it really took time to give a chance to the movie after reccovering from them. I just cannot understand how no one involved in such a production could intervene with such major decisions. Maybe the studio executives who produced this movie are not much different than the ones depicted in it?

Micaela Ramazzotti was amazing as Valeria. Her transformation upon need to a femme fatale of sorts was a delightful highlight. She had many contradicting aspects within one persona, which was the major reason I kept watching despite the aforementioned problems. Her monologue by the bedside of the comatosed Alessandro Pes was striking as well. I don't think there are many actresses who can make that scene look natural and sincere rather than a mere narrative device.

Valeria was definitely the power point of this voncoluted, weird movie, and I believe she should have been focused more on. Had that been the decision, Ramazzotti could have become for Italian cinema what Naomi Watts became for Hollywood in the aftermath of Mulholland Drive.

Does Roberto Andò have the qualities of David Lynch? Certain scenes in this movie suggest he might. The overall feeling I got was that, he lacked the initiative to go on with his basic creative instincts and succumbed to some other mechanism. I wonder if the version I watched was heavily edited down. Because there were shots that seemed to belong with long, meaningful scenes which somehow got cut off.

A stolen painting by Caravaggio is really an interesting subject to cover via cinema. So is the idea of approaching this subject while constructing Fellini-esque characters and subplots that tease creative process. However, the very creative process put into action while doing so had to be much more solid. And for that, the pillars of the narrative should have been long, deep, memorable scenes, and not the jumpcuts that in the end create a patchwork effect.

On a final note: Alessandro Gassman, who has inherited the qualities of his father, is a fine actor. But he is overly used in Italian TV and cinema. That wears down his effect and confuses us on whether to approach this movie as one of the countless comedies he is seen in or not. A less familiar face as Valeria's seductor could have helped give the film a more authentic feeling.